Microelectronics-Photonics (microEP) Graduate Program University of Arkansas

1. Microelectronics-Photonics (microEP) Graduate ProgramUniversity of Arkansas Ken Vickers – Director Research Professor, Physics (1998 – present) Eng Management, Texas Instruments (1980 – 1998) 479 575-2875 vickers@uark.edu www.uark.edu/depts/microep microEP Industrial Advisory Committee October 28, 2002 Fayetteville, Arkansas

2. Agenda: microEP Grad Program • Acknowledgements • Case for Action • Mission, Attributes, and Tactics • Dissemination Efforts • HBCU Partnerships • REU Efforts and Activities • GK-12 Outreach • Survey Results • Lessons Learned • Final Observations microEP Industrial Advisory Board

3. Acknowledgements • Dr. Len Schaper PI • UA Professor, Electrical Engineering • Dr. Greg Salamo Co-PI • UA University Professor, Physics • National Science Foundation IGERT (DGE-9972820) • Department of Education FIPSE (P116B000981A) • National Science Foundation REU Site (EEC-0097714) • Other NSF programs Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. microEP Industrial Advisory Board

4. Interdisciplinary Case for Action • Issues • Required knowledge content in degree always increasing • State-of-the-art advances often appear at degree boundary layers • Academic training emphasizes individual achievement • Business aspects of technology minimized in technical degrees • Industrial success requires individual and team excellence • Responses • Define flexible interdisciplinary degree for the boundary layer • Maintain vigorous technical content of curriculum • Add extra course for entrepreneurship of high tech research • Hire experienced industrial technical manager • Organize graduate program as industrial technical group • Hold each student accountable for all students’ academic success microEP Industrial Advisory Board

5. Comparison of Academic and Industrial Professional Environments microEP Industrial Advisory Board

6. Historical Departmental Approach Student Centered Approach Department or Program Career Degrees Courses Courses Degrees Career Department or Program Student Recruitment Method microEP Industrial Advisory Board

7. microEP Mission • The educational objective of the microEP program is a graduate fully prepared to drive the advancement of the combination of microelectronics and photonics. • This objective will be accomplished through a rigorous interdisciplinary graduate technical education, including soft skills and entrepreneurial training. microEP Industrial Advisory Board

8. Microelectronics-Photonics Graduate Program: Attributes • Created in April 1998 • MS microEP approved July 1999 • PhD microEP approved July 2000 • Defined as interdisciplinary between Physics, Chemistry, and all engineering • Focused on electronic and photonic materials, and the devices and systems they can create • Defined as professional development type degree • Based on industry-like Cohort methodology microEP Industrial Advisory Board

9. [1-10] [110] The microEP Graduate Program Research Spans: from Nanoscale Quantum Dots and Devices… (a) 50º 30º 30º …to 3-dimensional High Temperature Superconducting Electronic-Photonic Systems 15nm microEP Industrial Advisory Board

10. microEP Enhancements of Traditional Departmental Degree Elements Traditional Departmental Education Supplemental microEP Elements • Technical Knowledge • Core classes in undergrad dept • Most electives in department • Few other technical electives • Technical Knowledge • Core of interdisciplinary classes • Applied technical electives • Business classes • Research Methods • Slow student initiated linkage to research prof • Professor’s group meetings • Research Methods • Design of Experiments class during summer • Quick assignment to research prof • Formal research project plan • Team Skills • Project teams in classes • Team Skills • Pseudo-industry engineering group • Weekly operations management seminars • Invention and innovation • Individual mentoring within research group • Invention and Innovation • Summer inventiveness workshops • Personality and learning methods mapping • Intro summer camp for all microEP students Results in • Broadened technical knowledge • Rapid acclimation to first job • Early leadership roles • Earlier significant personal success Sound technical graduate degree microEP Industrial Advisory Board

11. microEP PhD Candidacy Exam • Traditional University of Arkansas Science/Engineering Process • Research proposal presented to committee for review. • Written exam based on content of specific undergraduate and graduate course knowledge content. • Oral examination by faculty of all subject matter. • Experimental microEP approach • To provide guidance to student and faculty on likelihood of student’s success in PhD studies. • Research proposal in NSF format submitted to committee, and presented in open forum for comments and approval. • Written exam is a scenario based complex technology problem • One week duration (spring break), answer limited to 15 pages • Open written resource, no discussion allowed • Includes technical solution, implementation method, etc. • Oral presentation may be required by committee if needed microEP Industrial Advisory Board

12. Courses Developed under microEP Influence • MGMT Intra/Entrepreneurship of Technology (Mgmt/Physics) • MEPH Organizational Management (Physics - 1 hour) • PHYS Research Management (Physics - 1 hour) • MEPH Proposal Writing and Management (Physics/ME - 1 hour) • MEPH Ethics for Scientists and Engineers (Physics - 1 hour – NSF REU financial) • MEPH Nanotech I (materials - Chemistry) • MEPH Nanotech II (devices – Physics) • MEPH Nanotech III (manufacturing – ME) • MEPH Introduction to MEMS (ME) • MEPH Advanced MEMS (ME) • PHYS Advanced Device Design (Physics – FIPSE financial) • PHYS Advanced Device Prototype and Characterization (Physics – Dept of Education FIPSE) • MEPH Integrated Passives (ChE) • MEPH Modeling for Scientists and Engineers (Civil Eng) microEP Industrial Advisory Board

13. Microelectronics-Photonics Graduate Program: Students • Fifty-seven students accepted into program to date • Thirteen women students • Nine African-American students • Twenty students have completed MS degrees • Twelve working in industry • Two self employed • Six pursuing PhD degrees (three African-American) • Twenty-five total PhD students on campus microEP Industrial Advisory Board

14. microEP Student/Faculty Alignment (Fellows/Total) microEP Industrial Advisory Board

15. Microelectronics-Photonics Graduate Program: History microEP Student Group Fall 2001 microEP Industrial Advisory Board

16. Microelectronics-Photonics Graduate Program: Funding History • Winner of nationally competitive grants • 1998: NWA BEST Formed (local funds) • 1999: NSF IGERT ($2.5 M Total) • 2000: NSF MRSEC ($3.4 M Total) • 2000: NSF Partnership for Innovation ($850 K Total) • 2000: Dept of Education FIPSE ($500 K Total) • 2001: NSF RET Supplements (3 teachers) • 2001: NSF REU Site ($385 K Total) • 2002: NSF GK-12 ($2.7 M Total) • 2002: NSF RET Supplements (4 teachers) • 2002: NSF EEP (July submission - $500k Total) microEP Industrial Advisory Board

17. Microelectronics-Photonics Graduate Program: Dissemination • Implemented Cohort methodology for Physics Graduate program Fall 2001 • Department of Education funded proposal under FIPSE • Funded (with NSF PFI) hiring of 2nd engineering manager from industry for cohort training and management • UA Cellular and Molecular interdisciplinary MS/PhD approved summer 2001 • UA/OSU Planetary and Space Sciences interdisciplinary MS/PhD (Fall 2002 submission) • Modeled after microEP structures and procedures • Finalist in IGERT 2002 competition microEP Industrial Advisory Board

18. Research Institution – HBCU Partnerships: A Case for Action • Research institutions must attract students from all population groups for success • HBCUs must prepare students for transition • Sustainable partnerships must support • Institutional rather than faculty centered knowledge • Matching students’ careers to research opportunities • Research institutions must recognize the change of culture for HBCU students • Undergraduate versus graduate expectations • Black majority versus white majority society • Faculty versus research group daily interactions microEP Industrial Advisory Board

19. George Washington Carver Project • Originated in 1996 as a UA funded REU style partnership • Southern University at Baton Rouge, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Alcorn State University, Tougaloo College, Jackson State University, Xavier University • HBCU Administrators identify students matching research opportunities • Initiated by Colleges of Agriculture, Business, and Education • Now also supported by College of Engineering and NSF REU sites • Typically twenty-five students in program each summer microEP Industrial Advisory Board

20. microEP Partnership Tactics: HBCU Administrators’ Visit • Institutional partnerships require detailed knowledge • IGERT funded two-day meeting on campus for administrators from partner HBCUs • January 2001 • Eleven attended • Introduced entire UA campus, not just the microEP graduate program microEP Industrial Advisory Board

21. microEP Partnership Tactics: Visits to HBCU sites • Institutional partnerships require detailed knowledge • Won FIPSE supplemental grant for $25K • Regional meeting at HBCU host (Jan/Feb 2003) • Funds support meeting and student travel • Other HBCU research institution partners invited • Primary purpose: Advance dissemination of Physics cohort methodology • Secondary purpose: Gain knowledge of HBCU faculty, administration, and facilities microEP Industrial Advisory Board

22. microEP NSF REU Site: Attributes • Submitted proposal and was funded for summers 2001- 2003 • Based on microEP research areas, with focus on nanotechnology • Included funding for REU students to take summer graduate ethics class • Included microEP Cohort methodology approach • Viewed as a prime recruiting tool • Dedicated three of twelve positions to Carver microEP Industrial Advisory Board

23. microEP NSF REU Site: Students • Twelve students attending 2001 REU • Five African-American • Three women • Five/seven eligible applied and accepted by UA grad school • Two others have expressed interest in UA after BS completion microEP Industrial Advisory Board

24. microEP NSF REU Site: Students • Fourteen students attending 2002 REU • Four African-American • One Hispanic • Five Women microEP Industrial Advisory Board

25. microEP Partnership Tactics: Merged REU/Carver Activities Kickoff Dinner 2001 2002 microEP Industrial Advisory Board

26. microEP Partnership Tactics: Merged REU/Carver Activities Summer Camp and common dormitory facilities Camp concepts by Dr. Ed Sobey (www.invention-center.com) microEP Industrial Advisory Board

27. microEP Partnership Tactics: Merged REU/Carver Activities Summer Camp Graduation 2001 2002 microEP Industrial Advisory Board

28. microEP Partnership Tactics: Merged REU/Carver Activities Research, Presentations, and Industry microEP Industrial Advisory Board

29. microEP Partnership Tactics: Merged REU/Carver Activities Fun in the Ozarks Lost Valley Eden Falls Hawks Bill Crag Buffalo River microEP Industrial Advisory Board

30. microEP Partnership Results: • Undergraduate research programs are leveraging each other for greater benefits to students • Cohort methodology is effective in emulating the highly supportive HBCU community • Institutional linkages are developing, but are not yet sustainable beyond individual faculty contacts • HBCU students are making the transition to grad school, but stronger mentoring may be necessary for some students (especially class load) • On campus collaborations among UA faculty are increasing • A 3/2 partnership with Xavier is being formed microEP Industrial Advisory Board

31. microEP HBCU Partnership Future: • FIPSE conferences on Carver partner institution campuses in Jan/Feb 2003 • Development of more 3/2 programs with Carver partner institutions • Development of NSF program/student database for enhanced matching of NSF supported undergrads with NSF graduate programs • Second Carver partner institution administrators’ meeting at UA campus microEP Industrial Advisory Board

32. GK-12 Outreach Efforts • C-SPIN (www.uark.edu/depts/microep) • Center for Semiconductor Physics in Nanoscience, a NSF funded Materials Research Science and Engineering Center • Salaried K-12 Outreach Director fully funded • Fayetteville, Springdale, and Winslow School Systems • Partners in microEP NSF GK-12 grant awarded April 2002 • BEST Robotics, Inc. (www.bestinc.org) • 24 hubs across the country with over 10,000 students participating • NSF STEP proposal submitted May 2002 with BRI • NSF Engineering Education Proposal planned for July 2002 submission with BRI microEP Industrial Advisory Board

33. GK-12 Outreach: BEST Robotics Inc (www.bestinc.org) • Boosting Engineering, Science, and Technology • A sports-like contest between remote controlled robots • Emulates product “design to market” life cycle • Resources are limited to those components issued at kickoff • Teachers serve as coaches • Members of the technical community serve as mentors • Community provides financial and administrative support • Students do all the work with adult mentoring microEP Industrial Advisory Board

34. Interpersonal Work Styles Inventory: On Campus Students • Cohort Program Traditional Program • N M SD N M SD • Developing Commitment 32 4.14 0.46 17 3.99 0.51 • Inspiring Accomplishment 32 4.29 0.56 17 3.91 0.65 • Valuing Communication 32 3.94 0.66 17 3.69 0.65 • Modeling Team Building 32 3.93 0.57 17 3.56 0.66 • There were no significant differences in the valuing communication and developing commitment scales. • There were significant differences on the inspiring accomplishments and modeling team-building characteristics subscales microEP Industrial Advisory Board

35. Absolute Rating of Knowledge andSkills by Graduates and Supervisors • Graduates Supervisors n M SD n M SD • Communication 6 4.58 0.49 4 4.63 0.48 • Problem Solving 6 4.33 0.50 4 4.70 0.38 • Team-working 6 4.33 0.41 4 4.38 0.48 • Business Skills 6 4.28 0.57 4 4.08 0.83 • Broad Range of Expertise 6 3.67 1.21 4 3.75 0.96 • Specialization in One Program 6 2.83 1.60 4 3.50 1.29 • Knowledge Level in Area 6 3.67 .82 4 4.50 1.00 • Internship in Graduate Program 6 3.67 1.51 4 4.00 1.15 • Supervisors and the graduates considered least important specialization in one program area. • As a whole, both rated the soft skills higher in level of importance in completing their job than the academic characteristics. microEP Industrial Advisory Board

36. Relative Rating of Knowledge andSkills by Graduates and Supervisors • Graduates’ Ratings Supervisors’ Ratings n M SD n M SD • Communication 6 3.83 1.08 4 4.00 0.82 • Problem Solving 6 3.87 0.62 4 3.90 0.84 • Team-working 6 3.67 0.41 4 3.88 0.75 • Business Skills 6 3.67 0.56 4 3.33 1.19 • Broad Range of Expertise 6 3.33 0.52 4 4.00 1.15 • Specialization in One Program 6 2.67 0.82 4 3.50 0.58 • Area Knowledge Level in Area 6 3.33 0.52 4 4.25 0.50 • Internship in Graduate Program 6 1.83 1.17 4 3.00 0.82 • Both supervisors and graduates perceive microEP training as being more effective than the average program in facilitating students’ abilities in being effective communicators, problem solvers, and workers in a team environment. • Graduates perceive their academic training in terms of knowledge level in an area of expertise and range of expertise as being approximately average, but supervisors perceive their training to be substantially above average. microEP Industrial Advisory Board

37. Industry Response to microEP Graduate Program • Dennis Andrucyk, Chief Technologist, NASA Goddard • “If all graduate programs were like microEP, I could eliminate my first year new hire mentoring program.” • Mike Fox, Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State College • “I think that the cohort-based workgroup concept has been a significant contributing factor to the creative behaviors I have observed in the Microelectronics-Photonics students.” • Barry Dill, Motorola, Device Engineering Manager • “I had no idea that an educational program like this existed that was so well matched to our technical and teamwork needs for device and process integration engineers.” microEP Industrial Advisory Board

38. Lessons Learned: IGERT Program Implementation • Barriers to success • Student academic metrics based on individual performance • Graduate research required to be individual effort • Faculty reward and recognition based on individual performance • Resources required for “extra” industrial experience are high • Requirements to overcome barriers • University-level administrators support general concepts • Program manager’s passionate belief in the program need • Program manager assigned only to program during startup phase • Program manager practiced in industrial teamwork atmosphere • Financial seed money support is critical • Customer feedback (industry) must be continuous microEP Industrial Advisory Board

39. Final Observations • Observations of students in microEP program on campus show strong workgroup identity • Feedback from graduates and their supervisors show positive assessments against students from standard graduate programs • The small number of students leaving the program have not utilized the personnel skills taught to manage stressful situations (a disappointment to program management) • The small number of surveys returned, and short span of longitudinal data, demands that these early results be interpreted with high levels of caution • The Cohort method will be continued in both microEP and Physics graduate programs microEP Industrial Advisory Board